What you appear to be saying is that the GCs are aimed at preventing the barbarism of war based on standards set by...the barbarians.

Or are you saying that, in this particular instance, the standards are best set by the war-time President who put your country on a war-footing by declaring a war on...a noun.

EWW!

I ya no-know algebra, and no can distinguish a dinkey, donkey, doughnut, or the various mysterious genome map patterns, huh, and who knows all the wheat germ species? Why?

Derbig Mooser? Mrs. Kretschmer?

She tao-tossed pizza pie dough?

She served toasted Wheat Germ.

Folic Acid, good UT's new name.

s.t.h.u. okay, so annoying, yes.

doesn't that indicate that the GCs are not conditioned as you say? --PDA

The relevant sentence says: "They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

which is 100% equivalent to:

"If said Power accepts and applies the provisions of the present Convention, then the Powers who are party thereto shall be bound by the Convention in relation to said Power."

which is clearly a conditional statement. If the condition does not hold, then the statement is false and so Powers party to the Convention would not be bound by it in relation to such a power.

Setting aside the fact that al-Qa'ida is not a "Power," --PDA

Your comment is another potentially valid objection to the GCs applying to al-Qaida at all. The GCs were meant to apply to warring nation states and so may not apply to our conflict with al-Qaida at all. It would of course still govern our actions in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which are high contracting party to the GCs.

Finally, I found another legal objection to the GCs governing how we treat members of al-Qaida. Let's say that the GCs do govern our conflict with al-Qaida. Then according to almost every ruling, captured members would have to fall under one of the 4 GCs. I think it is clear that they do not qualify for POW status and therefore the first 3 GCs do not apply, so they are only left with the 4th.

However, the 4th has an explicit clause where it says it doesn't apply in article 4:

"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are."

AFAIK, we have normal diplomatic relations with most of the countries (maybe save Iran), including Iraq and Afghanistan, from where these people are coming. So, again, I think a rather strong argument can be made that we are not legally bound by the GCs wrt our treatment of these people once they are determined not to be POWs by a competent court.

Okay, I'm so glad that's cleared up! So I can conclude that:

1) You are not "Oomex" that is simply a poster with a similar name.

2) the archive of letters under that name is from somebody else.

Thanks, It's nice to know that no matter how you spell it, it means the same thing.

I hear you. I'm in paralysis by analysis myself right now.

2) the archive of letters under that name is from somebody else.

Could you post a link to the archive? Cause the only thing that comes up when I google "oomex" is letters written by you and a bunch of Java code.

Why?

Are the social costs less than those associated with warrantless eavesdropping?

How does criminalization of addiction square with Holder’s lofty sentiments on “individual freedom and basic human rights”?

What else comes along with the War metaphor and cognitive model?

Does this exchange refresh your memory:

Derbig

The 'oomex' thing was never funny, but it is getting tedious. If you can't address me by my screen name, then use my real name, or better yet, stop addressing me period. That, in fact, would be the best solution.

-- omooex

[Read omooex's other letters]

Permalink Monday, July 21, 2008 05:31 PM

Lighten up, Francis

The 'oomex' thing was never funny, but it is getting tedious. If you can't address me by my screen name, then use my real name, or better yet, stop addressing me period. That, in fact, would be the best solution. --oomex

-- Sgt. Hulka

[Read Sgt. Hulka's other letters]

Permalink Monday, July 21, 2008 05:49 PM

Apparently, someone named Sgt. Hulka responded in your stead, but you get the message.

Like PDA, I couldn't find an archive with that name, only posts of yours replying to omooex with the name misspelled.

Now, I'm happy to say: `I'm glad I turned the contraption on again. Balzac reminds me of sorta of good 'ole William Timberman.

The baggy pants, huge cloak, Wall Streak Journal on a lap, and he can't hide a pink porpoise even, if Bill T- wanted to...

The pants always fall below Timberman's skinned shins. W.T. knob knees, heh. mr snoid. I know you must have read Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay: `Politics.

R. Waldo E. mentions what the # one, the very first commenter said today: The politico crawls to chair, and uses a primordial tale.

big boy, whoopee. big shot HSC.

Amazing. Jebbie needs to delete?

A grin scare otters and possums.

Clowns Scare Me

If attacked by clowns, go for the juggler.

:-)

For those elites and corporations that wish to employ death squads to quash labor and social activists. It is encouraging for those who wish to continue giving special favors and dispensation to corporations over people.

It is encouraging for those who want at least another 4 years of more of the same old money-in-politics special access and favors. More pardons for big donors and friends of Obama/Biden, favors for banks and credit card companies, favors for financial services, etc.

Change to believe in.